PDA

View Full Version : LTS (long term support) versions important to you?



RTrev
November 12th, 2009, 05:26 PM
Does it matter at all to you if the release of Ubuntu you're running happens to be an LTS version?

It doesn't to me, but perhaps those deploying in large company settings care.

The average user, I believe, just wants the latest and greatest, and will be upgrading to the latest version as soon as they can.

I haven't noticed any more or less breakage with LTS versions, but perhaps they're a bit less bleeding-edge.. haven't really noticed that but it would make sense.

In short, is there anyone here who really stays with the old LTS versions? If so, what benefits do you derive by doing this?

mikewhatever
November 12th, 2009, 05:39 PM
No. There is an on going myth that LTSs are more stable and polished, but the fact is, the last LTS has been nothing of the sort when it came out with Firefox2beta5 and a newly introduced pulseaudio. LTSs are good for servers and organizations, but aren't as attractive to home users. That said, I suspect, at least some home users would be rather comfortable to stick with an LTS for two years and then upgrade to the next one.

slakkie
November 12th, 2009, 05:47 PM
On servers LTS is essential. A large company doesn't want to upgrade every 6 months. LTS supplies the need for a stable fixed base where companies can build on.

I use it on my server, because I don't want to upgrade every single time. I ran LTS versions really long, also on my desktop. Just recently I started upgrading with every release.

LTS can also be beneficial to new users, so they are not forced to upgrade soon after they installed Ubuntu. They can learn a bit about Ubuntu.

Marlonsm
November 12th, 2009, 05:48 PM
LTSs are good if you don't want to (or can't) upgrade every 6 months.

About being more stable, when they are released they are just as stable as any other release. But as times passes bugs get fixed, so right now Hardy (8.04) is more stable than Karmic.

Ex0suit
November 12th, 2009, 06:01 PM
LTS are typically more stable.

gn2
November 12th, 2009, 06:28 PM
LTS is very imortant to me, don't use anything else, can't be bothered with the hassle of too much change.

If 8.04 was supported with security updates till 2019, I would probably still be using it come 2019.

I'll only be changing from 8.04 because eventually I will have to.

prshah
November 12th, 2009, 06:30 PM
In short, is there anyone here who really stays with the old LTS versions? If so, what benefits do you derive by doing this?

The LTS philosophy is quite a useful one for me.

On my main Desktop and Laptop, I use the most current release.

But in my office, on the staff computers and servers, I stick with LTSs. Upgrading any system is difficult, and these systems, chock-full of data and customized settings are very, very difficult. Upgrading these systems take anything upto 2 days, and so I much prefer LTSs to reduce the downtime.

I have a small setup only, (about 12 computers) so I guess larger organizations will feel far more fearful about upgrading.

kio_http
November 12th, 2009, 06:31 PM
Might be interested in this poll (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1322395)

jerrrys
November 12th, 2009, 06:37 PM
I like the stability of LTS and not having to upgrade every six months. However I must admit that I do have a copy of 9.10 loaded and am finding the changes most pleasing. Why do I have 9.10? Prepping for the release of 10.04 alpha, my next OS...

cariboo
November 12th, 2009, 06:48 PM
The LTS version is more for business users, than home users. Businesses don't change there OS very often, they usually only change to a new version when they upgrade hardware. As an example my brother-in-law works for a government agency, they gave a Tuff-book to do his job, He is on his third one since he started working for the department he is in. The previous new computer came with XP as vista hadn't come out yet, it did a month later though. Two months ago he was given a new Tuff-book, this time with Vista installed, even though Windows 7 was just about to be released. he will now be stuck with Vista for the next 3 years until it it's time for a new Tuff-book. By then an even newer version may be released, he'll always be a release version behind because of this policy.

uberdonkey5
November 12th, 2009, 06:59 PM
at first it wasn't important to me..

I now realise that every windows release could be considered a LTS. In ubuntu, non-LTS are like the testing ground.

Although I am going to upgrade to Karmic (for the ext4), I am pretty worried about it. Hardy has been more or less good, but to be honest, the wireless (initially) and hibernate didn't work well for me on that (surely that was fundamental, why doesn't it work in a LTS?!?!).

XubuRoxMySox
November 12th, 2009, 07:19 PM
I think I'll likely stick with LTS versions from now on. I have learned alot in a few months playing with updates and upgrades and customization of different DEs and stuff. But on my most mission-critical machine I want the most rock-stable Linux OS I can get.

The LTS releases are built from Debian Testing rather than Debian Unstable like all the others. That has to mean they are much more stable than anything built on Debian Unstable.

I'm having a look at the most recent Debian Stable release ("Lenny") and its derivatives to use on my "mission-critical" machine, and be more daring on a newer machine for testing the latest, kewlest, blingiest stuff.

-Robin

NJC
November 12th, 2009, 07:39 PM
No. The technology moves at such a dizzying pace, 6 month upgrades are preferred here.

BrokenKingpin
November 12th, 2009, 07:43 PM
I have a home server that I like to stick to the LTS release on. For my PC for normal use, I like to have the latest and greatest.

praveesh
November 12th, 2009, 08:15 PM
LTS is not for us enthusiasts . It's for enterprices. Imagine what would happen if windows release new versions twice a year .

steveneddy
November 12th, 2009, 10:20 PM
Does it matter at all to you if the release of Ubuntu you're running happens to be an LTS version?

It doesn't to me, but perhaps those deploying in large company settings care.

The average user, I believe, just wants the latest and greatest, and will be upgrading to the latest version as soon as they can.

I haven't noticed any more or less breakage with LTS versions, but perhaps they're a bit less bleeding-edge.. haven't really noticed that but it would make sense.

In short, is there anyone here who really stays with the old LTS versions? If so, what benefits do you derive by doing this?

An Ubuntu LTS release means stability.

If I want FF3, I will install it.

I will install ppa's on other software if it is necessary.

My machine needs to be reliable and stable, which is what an LTS release offers.

If an individual has a machine that is only for personal use and stablilty and reliability is not an issue, then use the unstable releases by all means.

I don't have time to muck around with the machine just getting it to work.

I started with Warty and learned during the Edgy/Feisty/Gutsy days that LTS is the way to go. I need to get work done. Actual work. I rely on this machine to make money.

Yes I'm interested in other releases and I sometimes run them in a VM.

So, yes, LTS is very necessary in my world.

The Real Dave
November 12th, 2009, 11:23 PM
. But as times passes bugs get fixed, so right now Hardy (8.04) is more stable than Karmic.

I had Hardy when it first released, and it almost killed me, but it seems almost bulletproof now :)